dortiz

About Dan Ortiz

Dan Ortiz is the John Allan Love Professor of Law and the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, where he has taught, except for three visiting gigs in California, since 1985. His teaching and research focus on election law, administrative law, constitutional law, and legal theory. He is co-director of the University of Virginia’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and was chief legal advisor to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by Presidents Ford and Carter in 2001. He has also toiled in the legal vineyards, challenging state bans on the interstate shipping of wine, and enjoys a good glass occasionally. In his spare time, he reads Italian detective fiction and English-language detective fiction set in Italy, struggles to keep his Italian from slipping even further, and generally tries to keep himself out of trouble.

At the initiative of House Republicans, the House recently changed its rules to allow the reading of the whole Constitution on the floor on the House’s opening day and to require each bill introduced in the House to be accompanied by a statement in the Congressional Record “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” Some are hailing both moves as a major change which will help keep Congress within the bounds the Framers originally intended. Others see it as cheap public relations, a sop to tea-partiers that will give the new Republican majority the cover to get back to congressional business as usual.

I wonder if both sides might be wrong. Might the focus on constitutional authority, particularly the second measure, work to popularize constitutionalism in the way some, like Larry Kramer of Stanford, have argued it was always meant to be. If so, one might wonder whether the Republicans should be careful what they wish for.

The recent blizzard in the Northeast and a funny article in the New York Times reminded me of a practice I had long forgotten. When I lived in Boston many years ago, I always found snowfalls amazing. The snow itself was wonderful, at least at first, but what really amused me was seeing people claiming parking spots they had shoveled out—no matter how light the snow—with lounge chairs, traffic cones, Elvis busts, and sofas so ratty you’d think only an exhausted and demented college freshman could sleep on them. These items marked what the shovelers considered their “property.”

More amazing still, other people, including the government itself, appeared to recognize these shoveled-out spots of public asphalt as no longer public. Somehow the snow and the effort of removing it had converted the parking commons to private property.

Courts often don’t get sex. We know that. But I had thought that this was a peculiarly American matter. Not so, apparently. British newspapers are reporting that Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation, its highest court for nonconstitutional issues, has civilly blessed an ecclesiastical court’s annulment of a marriage. That, by itself, will strike an American as odd. But there’s no reason why the contours of other countries’ disestablishmentarian principles, if any, should match ours, even when we’re talking Europe.

What’s really interesting is the reason the civil court affirmed the annulment. Before getting married the wife discussed with her future husband the idea of open marriage. As The Guardian reports, “the woman had ‘theorized’ that marriage did not have to be based on sexual fidelity, but had never put the idea into practice.” […]

Many have weighed in on Justice Breyer’s recent book, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View. They understandably focus on the sexy topics—constitutional interpretation, Brown v. Board of Education, and judicial review generally; the topics most relevant to today’s political battles—statutory interpretation and the culture wars; and Breyer’s own big, nagging question—why does the public respect the Court’s judgments. I understand all that, find their reactions interesting, and think that they further the conversation Breyer himself wants to promote. By that last standard, the book has proven at least a near-term success.

No one seems to read the book, however, as autobiography. Perhaps this is equally understandable. Although Breyer has an active public presence, he’s no fire-breather. Unlike one of his colleagues, he defends his positions while throwing as little red meat to his opponents as possible. If his writing is a little less entertaining or engaging for that, I imagine he’s content.

Contributors

Testimonials

I wanted to thank Andy [for connecting us to the right resource to resolve our procedural question].… You could have simply done the printing and charged us for it, but instead you helped us get the procedure correct – even though that obviated the filing. Thank you!

Lisa A. Mathewson

The Law Offices of Lisa A. Mathewson, LLC

Lisa A. Mathewson

Many thanks to everyone who assisted in the filing of my Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court – a special thanks to Matt, who gave extra effort to assure that my brief was accurate! As a pro se litigant, there is stress going it alone. Preparing my brief for the Court was the one phase where I did not feel alone, thanks to you.

Nina Eva Hajda, pro se

The oral argument in Haeger v. Goodyear went well! I want to thank you and your staff for the wonderful support and your very kind indulgence. I hope we have the opportunity to work with you and your office in the future.

Please extend my appreciation to your staff.

Meeling Tan

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC

Meeling Tan

Thank you all so much for your help in preparing the Petition for Writ in the Zaunbrecher case on behalf of my clients – the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, et al.

From the first call to the last, it was a great experience. Your staff is super professional, competent and downright friendly!

Amanda Clark

Forrester & Clark

Amanda Clark

When we have a question about Supreme Court practices, we know we can call Cockle and get the right answer. We know we can trust their experience in dealing with the Court, its rules and personnel. The team at Cockle has repeatedly come through for us, including under tight deadlines. Thank you Cockle!

Mike Persoon

I don’t know whether you and your team are aware that, indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our petition and remanded the case for further consideration.

I forgot to timely express my appreciation. Belatedly, I want to reach out and thank your team members for helping us make this very important achievement. Yes, “Better Briefs Win.”

Curtis L. Kennedy

Honestly, I don’t know where to start, but I will begin by thanking Andy, who gave me a chance and accepted my job. Without knowing what to expect, I picked up the phone and took a leap of faith. I picked up the phone and hung it up three different times. The fourth time, my Guardian Angel whispered to me and said: ‘Joseph, you must call Cockle,’ and assured me that this would be one of the best calls I’d ever make. Then, I dialed the number. The angel on the receiving end – after an introduction and the reason for my call, transferred me to Andy. Andy, like my Guardian Angel, was reassuring. From that first call, what I thought would be a difficult process, was simplified. Every person I spoke with handled my call with a professional touch and in the end, the work was masterpiece. I’m glad I called Cockle for my petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court and exceedingly thank all of you for being the best at what you do! I’m so happy that I called Cockle. Remain Blessed.

Chidi Joe AnoruoPro Se Petitioner

This is to express my appreciation for the expertise and professionalism of your team in processing our amicus brief. The initial proofreading team did a first rate job. I was very impressed by the attention to detail in the second round of edits done by Shelley and Mary Ann. Everyone was most helpful. You have a terrific organization. Many thanks.

James J. ClarkLaw Offices of James F. Clark

I would like to express my thanks to Cockle Legal Briefs and personally to Shari, Andy, and to all that took part in providing me their personal and professional help. This petition has been a decade-and-a-half in the making. I simply could not have managed the filing without Cockle.

Joseph RaimondoPro Se Petitioner

Thank you for all of your assistance. You make me look better than I ever thought I could. It was great to put all of these details in the hands of someone else and know that the petition would be timely filed and competently handled.